Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only active services are returned and names the returned fields, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, rate limits, or empty-result behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded with the return shape following immediately. Nothing is repeated from the structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description reasonably compensates by describing the return fields. However, it leaves the limit parameter undefined and gives no basis for choosing this tool over get_service, so the definition is adequate but incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50% — 'query' has a description but 'limit' (default 20, max 50) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description implies keyword matching returns matches, but adds no syntax or scope guidance for query and ignores limit entirely.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (AgentBroker service catalog) and even previews the return shape (active services with canonical ID, price, summary). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_service, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is strongly implied.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this tool versus get_service, no mention that it is for discovery before fetching a specific service, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer routing from the names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.